Ex Parte JACKSON - Page 4

          Appeal No. 2000-0004                                       Page 4           
          Application No. 08/872,004                                                  

          reference anticipates a claim must focus on what subject matter             
          is encompassed by the claim and what subject matter is described            
          by the reference.  As set forth by the court in Kalman v.                   
          Kimberly-Clark Corp., 713 F.2d 760, 772, 218 USPQ 781, 789 (Fed.            
          Cir. 1983), cert. denied, 465 U.S. 1026 (1984), it is only                  
          necessary for the claims to "'read on' something disclosed in the           
          reference, i.e., all limitations of the claim are found in the              
          reference, or 'fully met' by it."                                           
               In support of this rejection, the examiner states:                     
                    The Harrigan patent discloses a tubular                           
                    container in the form of a ring used to                           
                    contain suntan lotion. . . Figures 11, 12                         
                    disclose a tubular band 22 having a hollow                        
                    interior, a port at one band end closed by a                      
                    plug 160, and a screw cap 167 fitting about a                     
                    neck portion 163 of the plug and sealing it.                      
                    Fasteners 154, 168 connect opposite ends of                       
                    the band together.  The contents of the                           
                    tubular band can be removed or refilled                           
                    through the neck portion 163 when the cap 167                     
                    is removed. [final rejection at page 2].                          
          Appellant argues that Harrigan does not teach or suggest using              
          the bracelet to store a drinking fluid or securing the bracelet             
          around the neck of a pet.                                                   
               We agree with the appellant that Harrigan does not disclose            
          that the bracelet may be used to store drinking fluid or that the           

Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007